bob7947

Global K9 Protection Group LLC, vs. U. S. and American K-9 Detection Services, Nos. 23-210, 23-311, April 11, 2024. The Long and Winding Road Now, after four years, two remands with related remand extensions,1 two formal re-solicitations,2 two injunctions,3 three re-awards splitting the contract into two procurements,4 and approximately 34 total dog years,5 this case has finally reached its end. Judge Ryan T. Holte There is a companion opinion on the Home Page.

Thank you.

The only way that laws can be streamlined and abolished is by Congress itself. That is why you need committees assigned to propose it and to stop new bad laws from getting out of committee. The first competition rule was passed in 1792 so the committees will take years finding all the nonsense. Of course, they would still have to go through the full Congress to get their recommendations passed. In the end, Congress should state in law what is best for government contracting. It's their responsibility. They shouldn't end up writing unnecessary "design" laws. They should state the goals they want achieved. The "FAR" councils should write regulations to achieve those goals and accomplish the goals through the efforts of the "career filed." Congress, through the committees, would maintain oversight of the work of the "FAR" councils and the "career field" in achieving the goals it sets." Executive Orders are a different thing. However, they are more general and the future "FAR Councils" will write the regulations for them. The Councils can work within the Executive branch to work out the regulatory details.

The item above is from Subpart 1.1 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in case anyone is new to Federal Contracting. This week The Coalition for Government Procurement has a blog entry called Happy 40th Birthday to the FAR, but has it Gone too FAR? I think it is important to read it and see the mess you are given that directs much of your work. In the article the Coalition talks about appointing a FAR champion to fix it. That won't work because that would be treating the symptom and not the disease. The DISEASE is the United States Congress and its committees that have jurisdiction over each and every one of the government agencies. If they have jurisdiction over a goverment agency they have juridiction over the agency's contracting even if they have no idea about government contracting. That's ridiculous. Here's my opening salvo to the contracting mess of laws, GAO decisions, and court opinions. When you look at the FAR, remember, it is based on laws, GAO decisions, court opinions and who knows what else. Create one Senate and one House committee that have complete jurisdiction of all government contracting laws and regulations. And that is all they do. Each of those two committees creates a subcommittee dedicated to reviewing ALL contracting laws for the purpose of streamlining or abolishing them. Each of those two committees creates a subcommittee with total jurisdiction over defense contracting and a subcommittee with total jurisdiction over civilian agency contracting. After the laws have been dealt with the FAR system can be overhauled. There no longer will be title VIII 8s of the National Defense Authorization Acts since the Armed Services Committees will not have jurisdiction over any contracting.

There is a list of rules posted. I searched for NAVSUPINST 4200.99D and could not find it using Google. GPC? Government Purchase Card? Green Procurement Compilation? CH??????

If you think this COFC opinion is interesting, did you look at different parts of it to understand the subject matter? Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response Trust, No. 23-192 C, March 19, 2024.

This topic is subject to Rule 17. The OP needs to respond to others' questions by Friday or it will be locked.

I had forgotten how dificult doing this analysis was/is. However, I finished it about an hour ago. It appears at Analysis of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2024 It now sits with the other NDAAs since 2002 (with the exception of FY 23) here: NDAAs from 2002 thru 2024.

This procurement drew a crowd of protesters and a 108 page COFC opinion. Ekagra Partners, LLC, Unissant, Inc., AttainX, Inc., Logistics Systems, Inc., Arch Systems, LLC, Alpha Omega Integration, LLC, Garud Technology Services, Inc., Constellation, Inc., Chakrabarti Management Consultancy, Inc. v. U. S., and Novilo Technology Solutions, LLC., CAN Softtech, Inc., et al., Nos. 23-1610, 23-1667, 23-1668, 23-1675, 23-1676, 23-1721, 23-1792, 23-1814, 23-1844, March 7, 2024. (108 pages), (March 11, 2024)

S. 3626: Conforming Procedures for Federal Task and Delivery Order Contracts Act of 2024 is intended to clarify task and delivery order solicitation and contract requirements. This Senate bill was recently introduced and probably won't be enacted as a stand-alone act. If it gets anywhere, it most likely will be stuffed into the next NDAA

Possibly the most complete handbooks are from DoD. There are others. You may want to check NASA too. Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) Handbook for Services Acquisition: Originally posted: December 2017 Last updated: February 2018.

In accordance with Rule 17, this topic will be locked unless the OP reappears.

This topic is being closed due to no response from the OP, in accordance with . . . 17. Original posters must not disappear after they post a question. Disappearing makes it impossible to provide clarifications of the original post so that others may respond intelligently. It is normal for the original poster to be asked for clarification. The Orginal Poster has 5 calendar days after the original post to answer any questions. After that, the Topic will be locked.

I will keep this topic open for a little time to see if the original poster comes back. If not, I will delete the topic.

In two recent articles, Ralph Nash and Vern looked into whether the process of competitive negotiation (source selection) “works” to encourage firms to do business with the Government. See Our Competitive System: Does It Work?, 36 NCRNL ¶ 70, and Postscript II: Our Competitive System, 38 NCRNL¶ 3. They think the process is cumbersome, takes too long, and is too expensive. In Postscript II, they argued that the competitive system (rules and procedures) is badly designed and maladapted to present circumstances. In this article, they want to show, by way of example, that the system is worse when the bad design is poorly executed. See POSTSCRIPT III: OUR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM by Vernon J. Edwards.